<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>CENVAT Credit Properly Availed; Duty Liability Accurately Paid on Transaction Value; Revenue&#039;s Input Removal Claim Misconceived.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=27229</link>
    <description>Reversal of CENVAT credit - the said product is manufactured by the appellant, it can be seen that the CENVAT credit was correctly availed by the appellant, the duty liability is discharged on the transaction value is correct. To our mind the case of revenue treating the said product as removal of inputs as such, is misconceived - AT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 20:32:03 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 20:32:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=415578" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>CENVAT Credit Properly Availed; Duty Liability Accurately Paid on Transaction Value; Revenue&#039;s Input Removal Claim Misconceived.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=27229</link>
      <description>Reversal of CENVAT credit - the said product is manufactured by the appellant, it can be seen that the CENVAT credit was correctly availed by the appellant, the duty liability is discharged on the transaction value is correct. To our mind the case of revenue treating the said product as removal of inputs as such, is misconceived - AT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 20:32:03 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=27229</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>